lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: netpoll trapped question
Date
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> mpm> Yes, true. But we're still in trouble if we have nic irq handler ->
>> mpm> take private lock -> printk -> netconsole -> nic irq handler -> take
>> mpm> private lock. See?
>>
>> Okay, so that one has to be addressed on a per-driver basis. There's no
>> way for us to detect that situation. And how do drivers address this?
>> Simply don't printk inside the lock? I think that's reasonable.
>
> Why not queue the message whenever you're in IRQ context, and only
> print when you are not?

Actually how can this happen at all? The IRQ handler should've disabled
local IRQs which prevents the second handler from occuring.
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06    [W:0.058 / U:0.964 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site